Due to some recent past experiences in other threads wherein some members (who plainly state their honest dislike of vinyl) claim that modern LPs are just as dynamically clipped as their CD-counterparts, I'd like to take an opportunity to illustrate that this is IME not the case. I've heard it stated more than once that "vinyl is not about the music..it's about the ritual.) This is seemingly just plain-old lazy bias. It can easily be forgiven in that these posters make it pretty obvious that they don't purchase vinyl, let alone compare modern releases to their CD-counterparts.

Here are screenshots from needledrops I've done of some of my favorite recent records. All but one were released in the past two years. Warrel Dane's "Praises to the War Machine" was released in 2008. (As a fun side-note, the vinyl LP came with the CD and was limited to 1,000 copies worldwide.)

I would like to note that I did not cherry-pick these examples. I only have about three more needledrops that I also have a CD copy or iTunes Matched version of. I can upload those as well. It should also be noted that all of these examples are on the heavier-side of the metal genre and probably are far more dense in sound than most other examples from other genres.

I've brought each vinyl recording up to 0.1 under 0 dB for easier comparison. None of the peaks are "pops" or any artifacts associated with the LP medium. Only one had a "pop" that hit the ceiling and I corrected it before applying gain.

Borknagar - "The Earthling" from "Urd" (2012)

LP

iTunes Matched AAC

In Flames - "Ropes" from "Sounds of a Playground Fading" (2011)

LP

CD

(This album is an egregious example of how bad they can make a modern CD sound through destructive normalization.)

I'm not even sure what proof we still require that demonstrates what I contend is currently going on: that, more often than not, masters are being destructively normalized in application to digital formats but not for vinyl. Yes, some of them perhaps were mastered with DRC already. But the situation is aggravated further by what I believe is the music industry making sure modern digital files are all equally "loud."

By ear, the In Flames example is a bit more subtle than some of the blatant examples I've submitted. It "sounds better" to me and some others. David said he thought it sounded about the same after some manipulation. My software, used to measure dynamic range, indicates a considerable difference. I'm not familiar with gnypp45's method but he's claiming it indicates what is already obvious to most of us.

I mean this earnestly and am not trying to be a smartass: what's it going to take to get the aforementioned absolutist language of the wiki entry changed to more honest and neutral wording? I already feel I've overstated my case. The fact that it's still somehow not convincing is a bit disheartening.

I want to be clear in that I'm in no way trying to crap on digital. I honestly wish that the current industry would stop making the digital versions sound inferior to the vinyl ones. Even if one does prefer vinyl, he or she can't get even half the music he/she wants anymore on that format. I'm seeing, from my own modest collection of modern LPs, more than just some. It looks like a real trend.

So I guess my question now is this: is the TT DR Meter not a trustworthy application for measuring dynamic range? If it is it shows a moderate to considerable difference in all of these albums which I've taken samples from. I used the In Flames one here because it was one of only a couple that one or two members said they didn't perceive the difference.

I'm not even sure what proof we still require that demonstrates what I contend is currently going on: that, more often than not, masters are being destructively normalized in application to digital formats but not for vinyl.

this is an outrageous claim. last year, there were 4.6 million vinyl records sold in the US. that number is tiny. just to give a point of reference: a single track (gotye feat. kimbra Somebody That I Used to Know) sold more units digitally (it had 6.8 million paid downloads).

given vinyl is such a small market niche, why would anyone pay the price for a separate master for vinyl? why leads you to this strong conjucture that "more often than not, masters are being destructively normalized in application to digital formats but not for vinyl?"